Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Can Hillary Win Ohio After Obama's Victory in Wisconsin?
Okay. I admit it. Hillary is on the ropes now after Barack Obama's big win in Wisconsin. The news analysts seem to suggest that the reason for Clinton's loss in Wisconsin is that blue collar white men moved into Barack's column in larger numbers than ever before and that these workers abandoned Clinton who seemed their former choice. Will this happen in Ohio? If it does, the only big supporters of Hillary that seem to remain will be white women over sixty or more and Hispanics. I never imagined this strange twist of affairs. There is no question that Barack wows his audiences with his speeches and he has wowed me more than once. I still am hanging in there with Hillary until it is all decided. There still could be some kind of turnaround but I wonder if there is too much of an uphill battle for Hillary, a battle against sexism, a battle against a new generation that doesn't get Hillary like some of us older women just do. I need a boost in the morale department around now. Does anyone have the required amount of morale boosting juice to make us more hopeful. If so, please comment here. Thanks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
No, this won't make you more hopeful. I am a Democrat (although that doesn't say much --- really I don't see a huge difference between the two parties), lesbian, middle-aged and I do NOT want to vote for Hillary. It isn't sexism. It's just that I see her as someone who is primarily interested in attaining POWER. That desire is stronger than any sense of ethics, whatever. She has no qualms about transforming herself into whatever she needs to be to reach her goal.
Years spent in an UNELECTED position close to someone in power should not count as experience.
I don't like it that Bill would be the unelected co-president if Hillary were elected. I remember too well his pardons of folks like Marc Rich. Again, the most important thing is power.
Admittedly she is intelligent and well-informed, but her flaws outweigh her merits. Not supporting Hillary is not sexism, anymore than objecting to what the Israeli government does in the occupied territories is anti-Semitism.
The US is too stuck on itself. The US is not on the cutting edge, no way! This election is such a big deal for women because for the FIRST TIME a woman could be elected! Wow! The US could FINALLY catch up with the rest of the world! In the macho SA country I live in, we have a female president. As does the neighboring country.
Quit worrying about gender and get someone competent. Sadly, it is not clear that there is ANYBODY competent from either party --- the system is not set up to allow that. (Actually, the whole system of democracy in the US seems pretty flawed --- why not just have a prime minister instead?) But Obama at least offers a new face, and just by being elected will improve the standing of the US in foreign eyes. And there's LOTS of room for improvement there.
To BJR,
When you say Hillary's experience is being married to Bill that is not really correct. You overlooked the fact she has been a Senator for New York for six years and also that being first Lady is a real position that took her around the world meeting heads of states and speaking at important forums i.e The International Women's Conferenece in Bejingwhich was a biggie.
I believe sexism is the reason Hillary is not pulling in more support and votes. Sexism has put HIllary in an unrealistic box all you sexists and unseeing men have made for her. Read what Ellen Goodman, the columnist said recently about Obama and Clinton.
Women's movement made it possible to Obama to be Obama. Unfortunately the women's movement did not succeed yet in letting Clinton be Clinton. Men can be soft nowadays and show compassion. But not a woman running for President. She has to be a hawk, hard as steel and people don't like that really. Think about it. Sexism still reigns and the double standard.
"...all you sexists.."???
Come on, can't I disagree without being INSULTED? (I think you owe me an apology.) Can't you acknowledge that there could be grounds for not supporting Hillary OTHER than sexism? Yes, sexism is clearly evident in the media coverage of Hillary and in the attitudes of many voters. But it does not follow that anyone who fails to support her is automatically sexist. I see her as a very driven person who would transform herself into whatever she needs to be in order to get elected. Everything is calculated --- eg, her vote on the Iraq war. She doesn't have the courage to take any kind of moral stand (not that this quality distinguishes her from most of her Senate colleagues). For example, opinions about gun control, Palestinean rights, gay rights, etc. are now all carefully processed through a filter of "what do I need to think to get re-elected by New Yorkers."
Concerning her experience, being a senator DOES count as political experience --- nobody would deny her that. Being a spouse, in my opinion, does not qualify as bona fide political experience, anymore than being a political consultant counts. Being First Lady is an UNELECTED, UNACCOUNTABLE office. Not like a cabinet position that requires the (at least formal) approval of Congress. Could Karl Rove run for office and claim years of experience because he was a presidential adviser?
Clearly she is intelligent, but she comes with a huge amount of baggage that not everyone is comfortable with. And being wary of the baggage is not necessarily sexism. There are Republicans who probably would not support Jeb Bush SIMPLY because they don't want to continue a political dynasty (of course, there are scores of other even better reasons NOT to support Jeb Bush, but perhaps you see my point?).
Maureen Dowd wrote a column entitled "A Flawed Feminist Test" a couple of weeks ago. It's a good column and it captures a lot of the frustration I feel about this contest.
In my opinion, the election does not carry nearly as much weight as Americans assume it does. Yes, another 4 years of Bush would dig the US deeper into the miserable pit it has descended into. But a new President will not necessarily be able to do much to get the US out of the mess it's in.
Just look at what's happened since the mid-term elections. The Democrats FINALLY took control of Congress, so now everything is much better, right?!!!
No, the Democrats still line up to support legislation similar to the Patriot Act. Nothing really changes.
Clinton and Obama are pretty similar, really. Their differences in health care policy don't matter (although admittedly Clinton's proposal is better) because both candidates still just want to tweak a system that is fundamentally broken.
I do agree with you that Clinton and Obama are similar on many issues. I am not trying to insult you. I just think you are unable to understand some of what I am saying on a deep level because you are not a woman. Maureen Dowd seems very anti Hillary but I will try and find the article you mention.
Beyond sexism, Hillary just has not gotten a fair shake. I do think there is baggage with Hillary and the baggage is mostly Bill's not hers except for the Iraq War position which did bother me a lot.
She obviously sees the mistake she made and sounds more anxious than Obama to get out of Iraq starting in 60 days from gaining office. I like her health care plan and I think she would be excellent in times of emergencies. I am not so sure about Obama in these tense times and there is always an emergency. If Obama was really able
to shift the mindset of the USA away from hawkish ways, then I would prefer him to Hillary. The problem is I don't quite believe he can pull it off. The Clinton did not start any unjust Wars just the Kosovo one and that was morally justified.
By the way, I do basically like Obama and will vote for him in the event Hillary loses or drops out which seems likely.
Sharon
Wait a damn minute here! Now I am not a woman??? Read my first comment again. Didn't I tell you I was a lesbian?
The "tense times" come in part from an American foreign policy that supports Israel no matter what (no, I'm not Jewish, so feel free to label me anti-semitic now). Hillary has already signaled that she will give Israel full support (if she doesn't get to be the Democratic nominee, she still wants to keep her job as senator from NY after all). Hillary is also giving the same old tough bullshit about meeting with foreign leaders. At least Obama seems open.
US relations with the rest of the world would be improved considerably SIMPLY by having Obama as president. There is no baggage with him, and his election would signal that the US had changed (although admittedly it would not really be such a huge change).
And for the record, Clinton also bombed a factory in some dirt-poor African country on the basis of crappy intelligence that even the CIA knew was flawed. Remember? And I am not so sure that the US actions against Serbia were really so justifiable.
Post a Comment